Ethics Opinions

LAWYER-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP- A lawyer may
participate in a for-profit prepaid legal service plan provided the
plan complies with Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct and
the applicable laws.

The Ethics Committee of The Mississippi Bar has been requested
to render an opinion on the following set of facts:

A Mississippi attorney wishes to know if it is
ethically permissible to participate in a for-profit prepaid legal
service plan where the attorney agrees with a legal service group
to be paid a set amount per subscriber to the plan per year to
provide the following services to a subscriber: a legal opinion
letter, review of a contract, two and one half (2-1/2) hours of
consultation, legal advice in a small claims action, and drafting
of one ( l ) letter. The plan provides to subscribers the name of a
participating attorney who can be contacted during normal business
hours. The attorney agrees to notify the plan if a conflict of
interest arises and agrees to handle other matters where conflicts
may have arisen with other subscribing attorneys.

In response to numerous inquiries concerning ethical issues as
to for-profit prepaid legal service plans, the American Bar
Association, on December 14, 1987, issued Formal Opinion No. 87-355
which generally approves participation of a lawyer in such plans
under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, provided the
plan complied with guidelines of that Opinion, which must allow the
attorney to exercise independent professional judgment on behalf of
the client, to maintain client confidence, to avoid conflict of
interest, and to practice competently. The operation of the plan
must not involve improper advertising or solicitation or improper
fee sharing and must comply with applicable laws. The ABA Opinion
further made it incumbent upon the participating attorney to insure
that the plan complied with the ethical rules.

It is noted at the outset that the plan in question appears
similar to most for-profit prepaid legal service plans in that they
are owned and operated by sponsors who have a small monthly charge,
offer and subscribe certain "covered" legal services for no

additional costs. The services are provided by participating
lawyers and this plan does not require participating attorneys to
be in conflict with each other.

The Committee is of the opinion that nothing in the questioned
for-profit prepaid legal service plan violates the Mississippi
Rules of Professional Conduct. Nothing in the plan authorizes the
sponsor to interfere with the lawyer's exercise of independent
professional judgment or allows the sponsor to direct or regulate
the lawyer's professional conduct. Rule 5.4. Next, nothing in the
plan would require the participating attorney to reveal confidences
of a client. Rule 1.6. Also, the plan in question specifically
makes provision for alternative representation should conflict of
interests arise. Rules 1.7, 1.8, 1.9 and 1.10. Under the proposed
plan, an Attorney must, of course, be competent to handle referrals
in the areas mentioned. Rule 1.1. Further, the questioned plan
makes no mention of the attorney being involved in any advertising
or solicitation which would give rise to problems concerning Rules
7.1, 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4. Finally, this Committee agrees with the ABA
Opinion that there is no violation of Rule 5.4 concerning sharing
of legal fees with a non-lawyer. None of the problems meant to be
prohibited by not allowing fee sharing with non-lawyers are put in
this for-profit prepaid legal service plan, since the participating
attorney's independent judgment and freedom of action on behalf of
the client are preserved. As the ABA Opinion observed:

It is likely that the total fee will not be
unreasonable in light of the goal of prepaid legal service plans,
to make legal services more widely available at a lower cost to
persons of moderate means. Prepaid legal service plans are seen by
many to be a way to deliver legal services in non-complex matters
to a underrepresented client community.

In conclusion, the Committee finds that a lawyer may participate
in a for-profit prepaid legal service plan such as that in this
opinion, provided such plan comports with the Rules mentioned in
Section 83-41-1 et. seq., Mississippi Code of 1972, as Amended, and
the guidelines of this opinion.